Boris Johnson ‘whipping up riot fears to avoid Brexit extension’
Labour claims that PM is aiming to invoke emergency powers using the Civil Contingencies Act
inciting violence by accusing Remainers of Brexit “surrender” and “betrayal”, Starmer said it was part of an orchestrated plan to stoke a sense of outrage among Leave voters and create civil unrest, so an extension might be avoided...
There are other slightly less frightening possibilities, and lawyers must be rubbing their hands again:
“The Civil Contingencies Act is the only possible route I can imagine they can be thinking of,” Grieve said. “But if they do try to do this it would be a constitutional outrage. And if it passed through parliament it would be immediately challenged in the courts.”...John Major said he feared the Johnson government would try to bypass the Benn Act through an order of council. “It is important to note that an order of council can be passed by privy councillors – that is government ministers [only?] – without involving HM the Queen,” he said, adding: “I should warn the prime minister that – if this route is taken – it will be in flagrant defiance of parliament and utterly disrespectful to the supreme court [who have only ruled on prorogation, though, not the Benn Act]. It would be a piece of political chicanery that no one should ever forgive or forget [ie it probably isn't actually illegal so we need bluster] .”'Downing St sources said it was not planning to use the Civil Contingencies Act' which, under the recently re-popularised question about whether people have stopped beating their wives, means to Remainers that they ARE of course considering the other dodges.
The other stories are running well. The Sunday Times is still banging on [!] about Johnson's alleged affairs,and there is also this one emerging from the undergrowth and already popular on my Facebook page:
Calls for inquiry into claims Johnson backers benefit from no-deal Brexit
Cabinet secretary urged to look into conflict of interest fears raised by Philip Hammond and Rachel Johnson
there may be a conflict of interest in Johnson’s acceptance of support from hedge funds that could gain from an economic shock....“Johnson is backed by speculators who have bet billions on a hard Brexit – and there is only one option that works for them: a crash-out no-deal that sends the currency tumbling and inflation soaring,” Hammond wrote in the Times....Guto Bebb, a former Tory minister who was thrown out of the party for opposing a no-deal Brexit, said: “The dubious financiers who supported the ‘leave’ campaign and the prime minister’s leadership campaign are betting against Britain.
There's a nice blurry smear to follow -- chap's a shagger so he must be a crook as well:
Anna Soubry, the leader of Change UK, said: “This week’s events are damning evidence that Boris Johnson has no moral compass. It gives me no pleasure to believe that Johnson is in hock to all manner of people and in particular those who don’t give a toss about the livelihoods of our constituents but simply get even more rich gambling on our children’s future.”
You can imagine their disappointment at the failure to convict Aaron Banks, of course. But if Governments were to be punished every time finance capitalists made money from their decisions, the courts would be busy 24/7. The nearest they can get to a smoking gun is this:
Hammond and his team [so no good just suing him for libel] have not named any individual donors. However, hedge fund managers have backed Johnson. One of those is Crispin Odey, a fund manager who has also previously backed Vote Leave and Ukip. Over the summer, it was reported that his fund had made a £300m bet against British businesses and stood to profit from an economic slump in the UK. However, the fund also backed other British companies.
And has anyone backed Remain?
No comments:
Post a Comment